That is your opinion that they had no reason to believe they under thread of deadly assault. You do not know what kind of threat a trespasser poses.and as I've pointed out numerous times, they had no valid reason to believe they were under threat of a deadly assault.
I am pretty sure most victims of a lot burglaries make that decision to arm themselves because you do not know what kind of harm the intruder intends to do you. That intruder may not want to leave witnesses so he may shoot,stab or use some other method to kill you.That intruder may be horney and decide to rape you. That intruder may decided that he is going to just beat the hell out of you for fun.In fact, by their own admission (according to the article) they made up their mind to shoot whoever the next intruder was well in advance of that intruder actually being shot.
They are not murderers.What they did was not murder.If what they did was murder, they would have been charged with murder, went to trial and sentence upon a guilty conviction. Are you trying to say that the DA,or who ever is going to ignore a confession,physical evidence and a motive if what these men did was murder or even illegal?As I asked you to do before, look at the facts that we have available, and compare them to the statutory definition of self-defense. Their actions do not comport with that definition. Intentionally killing a human being absent some valid defense (such as self defense) is murder. Ergo they committed murder.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Because circumstance MATTERS and what they feel/know may very well be relevant
What they think matters
police can disagree and charge them
the a jury either agrees with what they though or doesnt and then they get charged or not
just how it works sorry
"legal standard" is based on circumstance
circumstance may very well be how the subject felt :shurg:
The grand jury chose not to indict, based on the case least favorable to the defendants, whereas the petit jury held them liable, after weighing the aforementioned unfavorable evidence against the evidence in their favor. These two verdicts, taken together, don't make a lot of sense.